Whether Article 999(2) of the Civil Act, amended by Act No. 6591 of January 14, 200, is unconstitutional (negative)

[1] Article 99(2) of the Civil Act, Articles 11, 23(1), 27(1), and 37(2) of the Constitution

Constitutional Court Order 99HunBa9 delivered on July 19, 2001 (Hun-Ba13-2, 1) Constitutional Court Order 2002Hun-Ma134 delivered on November 28, 2002 (Hun-Ma75, 1113)

Applicant 1 and seven others (Attorney Lee Yong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Other party (Attorney Cho Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The motion to propose the unconstitutionality of this case is dismissed.

The gist of the reason for the instant application is the opinion of the Supreme Court established in a lawsuit for recovery of inheritance under the Civil Act, which refers to a lawsuit claiming the recovery thereof when the right of inheritance was infringed upon by the title inheritor. However, on the premise that the true inheritor is a co-inheritors, in a case where the true inheritor or a part of co-inheritors who only succeeded to property claims cancellation, etc. of registration of real estate, which is inherited property, the ownership or the right of ownership belongs to the property, insofar as the assertion that the ownership or the right of ownership belongs to the cause of inheritance is a cause of inheritance, it shall be deemed as a lawsuit for recovery of inheritance under Article 99 of the Civil Act, regardless of the cause of the claim. This is the same in a case where some of co-inheritors conducted public records such as a certified copy of family register, and only some of them conducted sole registration by unlawful means such as forging documents with knowledge of the existence of other co-inheritors, and thus, Article 99(2)9(3) of the Civil Act provides for an equal period of limitation under Article 97(1) of the Civil Act.

Therefore, Article 99(2) of the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 6591, Jan. 14, 2002; hereinafter the same) provides that "the right to claim for recovery of inheritance under Article 999(1) of the former Civil Act shall expire after three years from the date on which the heir becomes aware of such infringement, and ten years from the date on which the inheritance commences." However, the Constitutional Court made a decision on July 19, 2001 that "ten years from the date on which the inheritance commences" under Article 999(2) of the former Civil Act is unconstitutional. For this reason, "ten years from the date on which the inheritance becomes unconstitutional" was declared to be contrary to the Constitution, and it was unfair that the true heir's property right was deducted from the date on which the heir acquired the right to claim recovery of inheritance under Article 999(2) of the former Civil Act for a relatively short period of 10 years from the date on which the heir acquired the right to claim recovery of inheritance under Article 999(2).

In general, the specific contents of the inheritance system and inheritance right are matters to be decided by legislators in legislative policy. Considering the purport of the decision of unconstitutionality as above or the amendment of the above law, the limitation period under Article 999(2) of the Civil Act has been unreasonable compared to the provisions of the former Act, the purpose of the lawsuit for recovery of inheritance is to guarantee the rights and interests of inheritors as well as to promptly confirm legal relations arising from inheritance, and there is a reasonable justification in its legislative purpose, it cannot be deemed that the provisions under Article 999(2) of the Civil Act infringe on property rights by deviating from the legislative discretion range, or unreasonably discriminates against the person who acquired the property right by inheritance, or the person who acquired the property right by inheritance from other causes, and it cannot be said that the right of a true heir is infringed (see Constitutional Court Order 2002HunMa134 delivered on November 28, 2002).

Ultimately, Article 99(2) of the Civil Act does not violate Articles 23(1), 37(2), 27(1), and 11 of the Constitution. Thus, the instant application is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)